The answer to his question is, if it is parts per million of a toxic substance, therefore it relates to benefits to health or to the environment and, therefore, is specifically covered under the phrase that says where nonquantifiable benefits to health, safety or the environment makes a more expensive alternative appropriate or in the public interest, then you may pick the more costly alternative.
Discussing the implications of toxic substances on health and environmental regulations.
Share
More from David Cay Johnston
This is absolutely devastating for Donald Trump, and unless a Court of Appeals overturns this, which I would think highly unlikely, we're going to see his properties seized, dissolved, and the creditors paid off, and he will be permanently…
Then how in the world can the Senator say they are transferring the duty of disposing of nuclear waste from the Federal Government or the taxpayers and giving that to the utilities?
nuclear waste traveling the country is, first of all, solid in form. It is sealed in a cask that, as I say, if you get a direct hit by something 30 times more powerful than an antitank weapon, what do you get? You get a third of an ounce…
we strongly oppose the Grams-McCain amendment and strongly support the Appalachian Regional Commission at this level. Mr. President, this has been an effective program to fight poverty in Appalachia. Appalachia is still one of the most…
Other voices in this conversation
